Even having standing as a guest does not give defendant an expectation of privacy in the driveway and garage of the house. Pankey v. City of Concord, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22889 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2008):<\/p>\n
Pankey did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy as to the Badger residence driveway: the driveway was fully visible from the street and Pankey himself flagged down Officer Nunn. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Officer Nunn to stop his car and walk up the driveway to talk to Pankey. Nor did Pankey have a legitimate expectation of privacy as to Badger’s garage. Pankey was not an overnight guest. Rather, the evidence showed that Pankey was merely present in Badger’s garage with Badger’s consent. Accordingly, Pankey cannot assert a Fourth Amendment violation based on the Officers’ entry onto Badger’s driveway or into Badger’s garage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of a car being towed to his uncle since he could not give his uncle’s name and no VIN could be found on the car. Mere possession is not standing. Alternatively, the officers had probable cause to search the car. United States v. Binder, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22722 (D. Utah March 21, 2008).*<\/p>\n
On the totality of circumstances, the officer reasonably believed that the defendant was in possession of an automatic AK-47, and that was his probable cause for arrest. United States v. Brooks<\/a>, 270 Fed. Appx. 382, 2008 FED App. 0154N (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading